Eugenics is a very sensitive topic. Probably because it reminds of the eugenic programs conducted by the Nazi. And, I'm probably going to get a lot of flack for saying this but I believe in eugenics.

I think humans are still one step away from animals. We are overcome with road rage. We admire conquerers like Achilles, Alexander the Great, Napolean, and Genghis Khan who have killed 100s of millions of people. Genghis Khan killed so many that the entire world's population decreased by 11%! We love watching sports, without realizing we do so because we love violence and athletic achievement. We cut the line on a highway ramp when we can. I think this is a huge sin. ;)

Now, imagine if we were able to eliminate such violence and selfishness from our genes? Think about how fast our society would advance technologically wise if everyone had an IQ of 200. (I know 100 is the average iq. I mean if everyone in the future had an iq that is the equivalent of a 200 iq today.)

Here is my solution. Why not have people with desirable traits (creativity, high IQ, diligence, etc.) be given tax incentives to have 3+ children. And, people who don't are only allowed one child. (It's funny but I think right now the reverse is happening just like in the movie Idiocracy.)

I think we would have to disguise this program somehow so it won't engender bad feelings. Mask the tax incentive program. For example, tax incentives will be given to large families. But, to take advantage of this program, you need to become a Merit Scholar or Fullbright scholar or something of merit.

If we do it like this, it won't have the harshness of preventing everyone from having kids. Everyone can have kids but there will just be a gentle push towards desirable traits. And, after a few hundred years, we might even invent time travel!

At 10/3/2014 10:48:41 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:Eugenics is a very sensitive topic. Probably because it reminds of the eugenic programs conducted by the Nazi. And, I'm probably going to get a lot of flack for saying this but I believe in eugenics.

Those damn Nazis ruined eugenics for everybody.

I think humans are still one step away from animals. We are overcome with road rage. We admire conquerers like Achilles, Alexander the Great, Napolean, and Genghis Khan who have killed 100s of millions of people. Genghis Khan killed so many that the entire world's population decreased by 11%! We love watching sports, without realizing we do so because we love violence and athletic achievement. We cut the line on a highway ramp when we can. I think this is a huge sin. ;)

We are animals, and we always will be.

Now, imagine if we were able to eliminate such violence and selfishness from our genes? Think about how fast our society would advance technologically wise if everyone had an IQ of 200. (I know 100 is the average iq. I mean if everyone in the future had an iq that is the equivalent of a 200 iq today.)

Can't be done.

Here is my solution. Why not have people with desirable traits (creativity, high IQ, diligence, etc.) be given tax incentives to have 3+ children. And, people who don't are only allowed one child. (It's funny but I think right now the reverse is happening just like in the movie Idiocracy.)

Those traits aren't heritable.

I think we would have to disguise this program somehow so it won't engender bad feelings. Mask the tax incentive program. For example, tax incentives will be given to large families. But, to take advantage of this program, you need to become a Merit Scholar or Fullbright scholar or something of merit.

People are stupid, but not that stupid.

If we do it like this, it won't have the harshness of preventing everyone from having kids. Everyone can have kids but there will just be a gentle push towards desirable traits. And, after a few hundred years, we might even invent time travel!

At 10/3/2014 10:48:41 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:Eugenics is a very sensitive topic. Probably because it reminds of the eugenic programs conducted by the Nazi. And, I'm probably going to get a lot of flack for saying this but I believe in eugenics.

I think humans are still one step away from animals. We are overcome with road rage. We admire conquerers like Achilles, Alexander the Great, Napolean, and Genghis Khan who have killed 100s of millions of people. Genghis Khan killed so many that the entire world's population decreased by 11%! We love watching sports, without realizing we do so because we love violence and athletic achievement. We cut the line on a highway ramp when we can. I think this is a huge sin. ;)

Now, imagine if we were able to eliminate such violence and selfishness from our genes? Think about how fast our society would advance technologically wise if everyone had an IQ of 200. (I know 100 is the average iq. I mean if everyone in the future had an iq that is the equivalent of a 200 iq today.)

Here is my solution. Why not have people with desirable traits (creativity, high IQ, diligence, etc.) be given tax incentives to have 3+ children. And, people who don't are only allowed one child. (It's funny but I think right now the reverse is happening just like in the movie Idiocracy.)

I think we would have to disguise this program somehow so it won't engender bad feelings. Mask the tax incentive program. For example, tax incentives will be given to large families. But, to take advantage of this program, you need to become a Merit Scholar or Fullbright scholar or something of merit.

If we do it like this, it won't have the harshness of preventing everyone from having kids. Everyone can have kids but there will just be a gentle push towards desirable traits. And, after a few hundred years, we might even invent time travel!

At 10/3/2014 10:48:41 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:Eugenics is a very sensitive topic. Probably because it reminds of the eugenic programs conducted by the Nazi. And, I'm probably going to get a lot of flack for saying this but I believe in eugenics.

I think humans are still one step away from animals. We are overcome with road rage. We admire conquerers like Achilles, Alexander the Great, Napolean, and Genghis Khan who have killed 100s of millions of people. Genghis Khan killed so many that the entire world's population decreased by 11%! We love watching sports, without realizing we do so because we love violence and athletic achievement. We cut the line on a highway ramp when we can. I think this is a huge sin. ;)

Now, imagine if we were able to eliminate such violence and selfishness from our genes? Think about how fast our society would advance technologically wise if everyone had an IQ of 200. (I know 100 is the average iq. I mean if everyone in the future had an iq that is the equivalent of a 200 iq today.)

Here is my solution. Why not have people with desirable traits (creativity, high IQ, diligence, etc.) be given tax incentives to have 3+ children. And, people who don't are only allowed one child. (It's funny but I think right now the reverse is happening just like in the movie Idiocracy.)

I think we would have to disguise this program somehow so it won't engender bad feelings. Mask the tax incentive program. For example, tax incentives will be given to large families. But, to take advantage of this program, you need to become a Merit Scholar or Fullbright scholar or something of merit.

If we do it like this, it won't have the harshness of preventing everyone from having kids. Everyone can have kids but there will just be a gentle push towards desirable traits. And, after a few hundred years, we might even invent time travel!

Eugenics is best left alone.

It's funny but this topic hasn't gained much attention by posters. But, I think eugenics would literally be the biggest advance of mankind. It would eclipse the wheel, the discovery of fire, computers, or money. It would cure poverty, war, and misery on this planet.

It's unfortunate the Nazis put a black mark on the field. I hope one day, people would consider it.

For eugenics to ever even approach being legitimate it would have to be somehow separated from and purified of pseudoscientific racial theories and social Darwinism. Unfortunately history indicates that this will be quite difficult to accomplish. We would also need to devise a form of society in which ordinaries aren't discriminated against and oppressed by the products of selective breeding and genetic engineering. Our current form of society, alas, would not afford us anywhere near sufficient protection against the potential for the development of a genetically based apartheid, as it were.

(Btw, you might be interested in viewing a program, "The Genius Experiment", that will air this Sunday on CNN.http://www.cnn.com... )

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Also, let's not be naive, in a capitalist society eugenics would be directed by, and directed toward the interests of, capitalist elites and corporations. In a capitalist society in which human beings are already commodified eugenics would be used to produce a human product more serviceable to the purposes of the rice & economically powerful; and more valuable from the crass point of view of big business which would always have its tentacles in, if not outright control any large-scale eugenics program. Yes, it would be quite simplistic and dangerously naive to think that eugenics would ever simply be practiced for the good of the species.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Typo correction. "... serviceable to the purposes of the rice & economically powerful ..." should of course read: "... serviceable to the purposes of the rich & economically powerful ..."

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

It's funny but this topic hasn't gained much attention by posters. But, I think eugenics would literally be the biggest advance of mankind. It would eclipse the wheel, the discovery of fire, computers, or money. It would cure poverty, war, and misery on this planet.

It's unfortunate the Nazis put a black mark on the field. I hope one day, people would consider it.

The Nazis weren't first to try Eugenics. Eugenics, like Communism, sounds great on paper but has consistently failed in the real world. Eugenics programmes run into one of two problems:

1. They target traits that are directly passed on from parent to child, such as eye or skin colour. This is basically racism, and doesn't go down too well with the public.

2. They target traits that are not directly passed down, such as intelligence. These traits have some genetic basis, but are mostly determined by nurture. If you take a kid with dumb parents and give him lots of books to read, and you take a kid with smart parents and send him to a child labour camp, the first kid will be smart and the second kid will be dumb. The smart kid exercised his brain from an early age, and developed the necessary neural pathways despite his parentage. The dumb kid has never used his brain for very much, and so never developed the necessary pathways in his brain.

At 10/10/2014 3:17:30 AM, charleslb wrote:Also, let's not be naive, in a capitalist society eugenics would be directed by, and directed toward the interests of, capitalist elites and corporations. In a capitalist society in which human beings are already commodified eugenics would be used to produce a human product more serviceable to the purposes of the rice & economically powerful; and more valuable from the crass point of view of big business which would always have its tentacles in, if not outright control any large-scale eugenics program. Yes, it would be quite simplistic and dangerously naive to think that eugenics would ever simply be practiced for the good of the species.

Do you see your bias? Your lack of objectivity? How do you expect anyone to have an intelligent discussion with you when you're so one-sided? This issue is eugenics but you start spouting your communist nonsense.

It's funny but this topic hasn't gained much attention by posters. But, I think eugenics would literally be the biggest advance of mankind. It would eclipse the wheel, the discovery of fire, computers, or money. It would cure poverty, war, and misery on this planet.

It's unfortunate the Nazis put a black mark on the field. I hope one day, people would consider it.

The Nazis weren't first to try Eugenics. Eugenics, like Communism, sounds great on paper but has consistently failed in the real world. Eugenics programmes run into one of two problems:

1. They target traits that are directly passed on from parent to child, such as eye or skin colour. This is basically racism, and doesn't go down too well with the public.

2. They target traits that are not directly passed down, such as intelligence. These traits have some genetic basis, but are mostly determined by nurture. If you take a kid with dumb parents and give him lots of books to read, and you take a kid with smart parents and send him to a child labour camp, the first kid will be smart and the second kid will be dumb. The smart kid exercised his brain from an early age, and developed the necessary neural pathways despite his parentage. The dumb kid has never used his brain for very much, and so never developed the necessary pathways in his brain.

I disagree with your statement that traits such as intelligence can't be passed down and it's mostly determined by nurture. Scientific studies prove otherwise. Actually, heritability of IQ is .8 out of a scale of 1 which is very high. Please google it.

The problem is that IQ like all inheritable genes is complicated. Just because you have two smart parents, you won't necessarily get a smart kid. It might not even be over 50% likelihood. Also, two particular stupid people that carry certain recessive genes might have a better likelihood to spit out a smart kid that two smart parents. This unexpected result is due to the complicated nature of genes.

But, what's important is if you take a large sample pool, smarter parents will be more likelihood to produce smarter kids. IQ is definitely inheritable.

At 10/10/2014 3:17:30 AM, charleslb wrote:Also, let's not be naive, in a capitalist society eugenics would be directed by, and directed toward the interests of, capitalist elites and corporations. In a capitalist society in which human beings are already commodified eugenics would be used to produce a human product more serviceable to the purposes of the rice & economically powerful; and more valuable from the crass point of view of big business which would always have its tentacles in, if not outright control any large-scale eugenics program. Yes, it would be quite simplistic and dangerously naive to think that eugenics would ever simply be practiced for the good of the species.

Do you see your bias? Your lack of objectivity? How do you expect anyone to have an intelligent discussion with you when you're so one-sided? This issue is eugenics but you start spouting your communist nonsense.

The traits selected for will be traits deemed desirable by the government of a capitalist society, and thus necessarily the product of your eugenics will be above all else favourable to the government of a capitalist society.

1. Eugenics would be controlled by a power structure2. That hierarchical institution has great interest in the fortification or expansion of its powerConclusion: The product of eugenics would be in the interests of the fortification of or the expansion of the power structure

Don't you see the blatant lack of critical thought and analysis? Unless you want to claim that society is perfectly just, then you're going to have to take a serious look at whether the actions of a society which you accept is not perfectly just are going to have good or bad consequences.

I think humans are still one step away from animals. We are overcome with road rage. We admire conquerers like Achilles, Alexander the Great, Napolean, and Genghis Khan who have killed 100s of millions of peopleNow, imagine if we were able to eliminate such violence and selfishness from our genes? Think about how fast our society would advance technologically wise if everyone had an IQ of 200. (I know 100 is the average iq. I mean if everyone in the future had an iq that is the equivalent of a 200 iq today.)

It will probably enrage you to hear that I have an anarchist interpretation of all of this, but I think it's pretty reasonable. Under a competitive economic system we idolise the wrong kind of people. Conquerors are idolised because the won by beating everyone else down, which is how you get rich, broadly speaking, in capitalism. If you want people to have better role models, then rather than improving their intelligence, place them under a different system. An individual 'wins' under socialism when he brings everyone up with him; revolutionary inventors, scientists, people like Gandhi and MLK. People are violent because the principle of government is that dissent and antagonism is crushed by force. People are selfish because the principle of capitalism is "gain wealth, forgetting all but self". People are unoriginal and uncreative because when they are educated, they are taught that what is valuable is when you do what you are told. The disobedient student is labelled either stupid or stupidly lazy, while the obedient student who follows every instruction to the letter is met with approbation. The best dog is the one who not only obeys the command to jump through the hoop, but can jump high enough.

I also think your analysis of people in society is a bit flawed. Nasty intelligent people can gain power and money. In fact, stupid nasty people can too. They can become police officers or prison guards, whereas they would have become politicians and financiers if they were intelligent. Obedient stupid people don't rock the boat. What rocks the boat is disobedient stupid people, for the most part. You don't even have to be nasty. If you're dumb and you don't like authority, you are an unwelcome element in society, and thus you will be pushed to petty crime and violence - it's just magnified if you happen to be nasty as well as disobedient. This is a very simple analysis, but I think it shows, in line with what I've said above, that the 'animals' to whom you refer are petty violent criminals, who really aren't that big of a deal, because they aren't the ones who have power. Intelligent nasty people are far worse, because they're the ones who are potentially in charge of everything.

"In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."

2. They target traits that are not directly passed down, such as intelligence. These traits have some genetic basis, but are mostly determined by nurture. If you take a kid with dumb parents and give him lots of books to read, and you take a kid with smart parents and send him to a child labour camp, the first kid will be smart and the second kid will be dumb. The smart kid exercised his brain from an early age, and developed the necessary neural pathways despite his parentage. The dumb kid has never used his brain for very much, and so never developed the necessary pathways in his brain.

Then why do identical twins separated at birth perform equally as well on intelligence tests? Why is brain size correlated with intelligence at a factor of about .40. Your theory sounds nice, and perhaps even "makes sense" on an a priori basis, but it's simply not supported by the evidence.

"In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."

At 10/3/2014 10:48:41 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:Eugenics is a very sensitive topic. Probably because it reminds of the eugenic programs conducted by the Nazi. And, I'm probably going to get a lot of flack for saying this but I believe in eugenics.

I think humans are still one step away from animals. We are overcome with road rage. We admire conquerers like Achilles, Alexander the Great, Napolean, and Genghis Khan who have killed 100s of millions of people. Genghis Khan killed so many that the entire world's population decreased by 11%! We love watching sports, without realizing we do so because we love violence and athletic achievement. We cut the line on a highway ramp when we can. I think this is a huge sin. ;)

Now, imagine if we were able to eliminate such violence and selfishness from our genes? Think about how fast our society would advance technologically wise if everyone had an IQ of 200. (I know 100 is the average iq. I mean if everyone in the future had an iq that is the equivalent of a 200 iq today.)

Here is my solution. Why not have people with desirable traits (creativity, high IQ, diligence, etc.) be given tax incentives to have 3+ children. And, people who don't are only allowed one child. (It's funny but I think right now the reverse is happening just like in the movie Idiocracy.)

I think we would have to disguise this program somehow so it won't engender bad feelings. Mask the tax incentive program. For example, tax incentives will be given to large families. But, to take advantage of this program, you need to become a Merit Scholar or Fullbright scholar or something of merit.

If we do it like this, it won't have the harshness of preventing everyone from having kids. Everyone can have kids but there will just be a gentle push towards desirable traits. And, after a few hundred years, we might even invent time travel!

Eugenics is stupid and infeasible.

If there is one thing evolution has shown, it is that long-term survivability comes from genetic variability, not genetic extremism. What is a beneficial trait now may become useless or detrimental later. What is useless and detrimental now may become beneficial later. The idea that some trait is universally beneficial is complete and utter bullsh1t.

At 10/3/2014 10:48:41 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:Eugenics is a very sensitive topic. Probably because it reminds of the eugenic programs conducted by the Nazi. And, I'm probably going to get a lot of flack for saying this but I believe in eugenics.

I think humans are still one step away from animals. We are overcome with road rage. We admire conquerers like Achilles, Alexander the Great, Napolean, and Genghis Khan who have killed 100s of millions of people. Genghis Khan killed so many that the entire world's population decreased by 11%! We love watching sports, without realizing we do so because we love violence and athletic achievement. We cut the line on a highway ramp when we can. I think this is a huge sin. ;)

Now, imagine if we were able to eliminate such violence and selfishness from our genes? Think about how fast our society would advance technologically wise if everyone had an IQ of 200. (I know 100 is the average iq. I mean if everyone in the future had an iq that is the equivalent of a 200 iq today.)

Here is my solution. Why not have people with desirable traits (creativity, high IQ, diligence, etc.) be given tax incentives to have 3+ children. And, people who don't are only allowed one child. (It's funny but I think right now the reverse is happening just like in the movie Idiocracy.)

I think we would have to disguise this program somehow so it won't engender bad feelings. Mask the tax incentive program. For example, tax incentives will be given to large families. But, to take advantage of this program, you need to become a Merit Scholar or Fullbright scholar or something of merit.

If we do it like this, it won't have the harshness of preventing everyone from having kids. Everyone can have kids but there will just be a gentle push towards desirable traits. And, after a few hundred years, we might even invent time travel!

Eugenics is stupid and infeasible.

If there is one thing evolution has shown, it is that long-term survivability comes from genetic variability, not genetic extremism. What is a beneficial trait now may become useless or detrimental later. What is useless and detrimental now may become beneficial later. The idea that some trait is universally beneficial is complete and utter bullsh1t.

...Except that evolution no longer applies to humans in the usual sense. We have transcended the normal and everyday restrictions of our environments, and thus, the traits passed down have nothing whatsoever to do with our survival. Indeed, in today's world, humanity's survival depends on its ability to deal with irreducibly complex problems which spell catastrophe - not gradual selective pressure- should we fail to deal with them, and thus to intelligence. It is undeniable that intelligence would be beneficial no matter the circumstances we face in the future, for intelligence allows a species to predict and implement steps to properly deal with threats against its survival.

Eugenics is nothing more than a cover for racism, plain and simple.

Indefensible nonsense.

"In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."

At 10/10/2014 3:17:30 AM, charleslb wrote:Also, let's not be naive, in a capitalist society eugenics would be directed by, and directed toward the interests of, capitalist elites and corporations. In a capitalist society in which human beings are already commodified eugenics would be used to produce a human product more serviceable to the purposes of the rice & economically powerful; and more valuable from the crass point of view of big business which would always have its tentacles in, if not outright control any large-scale eugenics program. Yes, it would be quite simplistic and dangerously naive to think that eugenics would ever simply be practiced for the good of the species.

Do you see your bias? Your lack of objectivity? How do you expect anyone to have an intelligent discussion with you when you're so one-sided? This issue is eugenics but you start spouting your communist nonsense.

The traits selected for will be traits deemed desirable by the government of a capitalist society, and thus necessarily the product of your eugenics will be above all else favourable to the government of a capitalist society.

1. Eugenics would be controlled by a power structure2. That hierarchical institution has great interest in the fortification or expansion of its powerConclusion: The product of eugenics would be in the interests of the fortification of or the expansion of the power structure

Don't you see the blatant lack of critical thought and analysis? Unless you want to claim that society is perfectly just, then you're going to have to take a serious look at whether the actions of a society which you accept is not perfectly just are going to have good or bad consequences.

I think humans are still one step away from animals. We are overcome with road rage. We admire conquerers like Achilles, Alexander the Great, Napolean, and Genghis Khan who have killed 100s of millions of peopleNow, imagine if we were able to eliminate such violence and selfishness from our genes? Think about how fast our society would advance technologically wise if everyone had an IQ of 200. (I know 100 is the average iq. I mean if everyone in the future had an iq that is the equivalent of a 200 iq today.)

It will probably enrage you to hear that I have an anarchist interpretation of all of this, but I think it's pretty reasonable. Under a competitive economic system we idolise the wrong kind of people. Conquerors are idolised because the won by beating everyone else down, which is how you get rich, broadly speaking, in capitalism. If you want people to have better role models, then rather than improving their intelligence, place them under a different system. An individual 'wins' under socialism when he brings everyone up with him; revolutionary inventors, scientists, people like Gandhi and MLK. People are violent because the principle of government is that dissent and antagonism is crushed by force. People are selfish because the principle of capitalism is "gain wealth, forgetting all but self". People are unoriginal and uncreative because when they are educated, they are taught that what is valuable is when you do what you are told. The disobedient student is labelled either stupid or stupidly lazy, while the obedient student who follows every instruction to the letter is met with approbation. The best dog is the one who not only obeys the command to jump through the hoop, but can jump high enough.

I also think your analysis of people in society is a bit flawed. Nasty intelligent people can gain power and money. In fact, stupid nasty people can too. They can become police officers or prison guards, whereas they would have become politicians and financiers if they were intelligent. Obedient stupid people don't rock the boat. What rocks the boat is disobedient stupid people, for the most part. You don't even have to be nasty. If you're dumb and you don't like authority, you are an unwelcome element in society, and thus you will be pushed to petty crime and violence - it's just magnified if you happen to be nasty as well as disobedient. This is a very simple analysis, but I think it shows, in line with what I've said above, that the 'animals' to whom you refer are petty violent criminals, who really aren't that big of a deal, because they aren't the ones who have power. Intelligent nasty people are far worse, because they're the ones who are potentially in charge of everything.

First, you're bringing all this communist/capitalism nonsense to this discussion. It's tangential. Please leave it out.

Second, I wasn't just talking about intelligence. It would be wrong to just focus on that. We need to concentrate on other traits such as creativity, work ethic, compassion, etc.

Third, I don't think these people are to be given positions of power. Very far from it because everyone knows that's not how genetics work. For example, it's possible and likely that a smart person will produce a stupid person. (If IQ is a single recessive gene (which is a big assumption), then there is only a 25% chance of intelligent offspring.) What I suggest is that there are is a slight encouragement of certain traits. Offsprings are born and they do what they can achieve in life. No special treatment.

It's actually very relevant if the reason that eugenics would be a bad idea is because of the structures of power that exist in society. Admittedly a lot of that was me trying to show how the ends of your eugenics would be promoted by other means, but whatever. I could put forward a more mainstream analysis.

Second, I wasn't just talking about intelligence. It would be wrong to just focus on that. We need to concentrate on other traits such as creativity, work ethic, compassion, etc.

Why not have people with desirable traits (creativity, high IQ, diligence, etc.) be given tax incentives to have 3+ children. And, people who don't are only allowed one child

Deciding who gets these 'tax incentives' would be fairly easy, I suppose, if it wasn't for the fact that everyone else is only allowed one kid. It's incredibly easy to single out admirable people, but once you make it so that everyone has to be put through this analysis and 'granted permission' to have more than one child you make things not only incredibly difficult but also what people like to call 'fascistic'. The same problem occurs if you're being vague and you mean that people who you find particularly stupid and cruel are subject to the one-child policy.

Third, I don't think these people are to be given positions of power. Very far from it because everyone knows that's not how genetics work. For example, it's possible and likely that a smart person will produce a stupid person. (If IQ is a single recessive gene (which is a big assumption), then there is only a 25% chance of intelligent offspring.)

I wasn't implying that they were to be given special treatment, I was arguing that if the government is responsible for determing who gets to have kids and who doesn't, then, by the capitalist law of human nature, the end result of that eugenic process will be favourable to the government, and, if the government is not a 100% just entity, then there remains the possibility that the result of that eugenics will be harmful.

What I suggest is that there are is a slight encouragement of certain traits

Another thing, wouldn't this simply contribute to division in society? I imagine it does wonders if you want to create some Leopolds and Loebs to have them marked at birth as genetically superior.

Scientists theorize that Ashkenazi Jews have high IQ because successful men were encouraged to have huge families. Only the rich (proxy for IQ) were able to afford these huge families. As a result, over many generations, this group have higher than average brain size and reported iq.

The results? About 22% of Nobel prizes have been won by Jews even though they constitute less than .2% of the population. That's a lot of good.

Now, look at Asian countries strongly influenced by Confucianism. Under Confucianism, men who passed extremely difficult civil service exams were granted powerful and lucrative positions. And, they ended up having multiple wives with huge broods. Although communism derailed the economies of these countries for the past 100 years, these particular countries are coming back stronger than other asian countries. And, most likely will become the new "United States" in about 100 years.

Now, imagine if this sort of eugenics were applied to all of mankind. The good it would produce. The advances we would make....

At 10/10/2014 3:17:30 AM, charleslb wrote:Also, let's not be naive, in a capitalist society eugenics would be directed by, and directed toward the interests of, capitalist elites and corporations. In a capitalist society in which human beings are already commodified eugenics would be used to produce a human product more serviceable to the purposes of the rice & economically powerful; and more valuable from the crass point of view of big business which would always have its tentacles in, if not outright control any large-scale eugenics program. Yes, it would be quite simplistic and dangerously naive to think that eugenics would ever simply be practiced for the good of the species.

Do you see your bias? Your lack of objectivity?

Lol Jackass, it would profit you to focus less on my alleged bias and more on the beam in your own eye. I merely pointed out that the implementation of a program of eugenics would not take place in a socioeconomic vacuum, i fact it would take place within the socioeconomic context and system of interests and social/power relations that is capitalism and would be skewed by said interests and social/power relations. Pointing this out is just a matter of being realistic and thinking critically, not a matter of being "biased", "one-sided", or "spouting communist nonsense". But apparently you've decided that from here on in you're going to be a knee-jerk jackass and respond to all of my comments by dismissing them as anti-capitalist & commie nonsense. How very facile of you. How sadly intolerant. How disappointing.

How do you expect anyone to have an intelligent discussion with you when you're so one-sided? This issue is eugenics but you start spouting your communist nonsense.

I in fact said nothing about communism and made two posts containing several highly relevant thoughts and a couple of interesting links, and the best that you're capable of is a grumpy-intolerant-insulting-dismissive rebuke about me "spouting communist nonsense". Again, quite disappointing.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Also, I'd like to point out that eugenics seems to go with and foster a superiority-oriented mentality and the slighting of values such as love and empathy. Well it certainly doesn't promote empathy for the poor and the socially powerless, who are often viewed and held in disesteem as inferior by folks with a eugenic-oriented worldview (which of course is consistent with the rightist bent of most pro-eugenics types). Which is to say that it probably will not ever be possible to promote eugenics without generating and propagating an entire uncompassionate worldview that will certainly not make our society a kinder and gentler place.

(Was this too inappropriately communist of me?)

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

If there is one thing evolution has shown, it is that long-term survivability comes from genetic variability, not genetic extremism. What is a beneficial trait now may become useless or detrimental later. What is useless and detrimental now may become beneficial later. The idea that some trait is universally beneficial is complete and utter bullsh1t.

...Except that evolution no longer applies to humans in the usual sense. We have transcended the normal and everyday restrictions of our environments, and thus, the traits passed down have nothing whatsoever to do with our survival. Indeed, in today's world, humanity's survival depends on its ability to deal with irreducibly complex problems which spell catastrophe - not gradual selective pressure- should we fail to deal with them, and thus to intelligence. It is undeniable that intelligence would be beneficial no matter the circumstances we face in the future, for intelligence allows a species to predict and implement steps to properly deal with threats against its survival.

Nonsense. Of course evolution applies to us. It necessarily applies to all living things. Evolution is descent with modification. So long as we continue to produce genetically distinct offspring, evolution applies.

Since we can't see all ends, there is no indication that intelligence necessarily conveys some sort of long-term survivability, and many reasons to believe that it will ultimately spell our doom (nukes, global warming).

If there is one thing evolution has shown, it is that long-term survivability comes from genetic variability, not genetic extremism. What is a beneficial trait now may become useless or detrimental later. What is useless and detrimental now may become beneficial later. The idea that some trait is universally beneficial is complete and utter bullsh1t.

...Except that evolution no longer applies to humans in the usual sense. We have transcended the normal and everyday restrictions of our environments, and thus, the traits passed down have nothing whatsoever to do with our survival. Indeed, in today's world, humanity's survival depends on its ability to deal with irreducibly complex problems which spell catastrophe - not gradual selective pressure- should we fail to deal with them, and thus to intelligence. It is undeniable that intelligence would be beneficial no matter the circumstances we face in the future, for intelligence allows a species to predict and implement steps to properly deal with threats against its survival.

Nonsense. Of course evolution applies to us. It necessarily applies to all living things. Evolution is descent with modification. So long as we continue to produce genetically distinct offspring, evolution applies.

I never said that evolution no longer applies to us. You're taking what you know about evolution, and misapplying it.

Since we can't see all ends, there is no indication that intelligence necessarily conveys some sort of long-term survivability, and many reasons to believe that it will ultimately spell our doom (nukes, global warming).

At this point in time, a steady decline in human intelligence will bring us to disaster.

You want to know what a truly successful species is? Bacteria.

They won the game 4 billion years ago.

What a silly definition of "success".

"In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."

At 10/3/2014 10:48:41 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:Eugenics is a very sensitive topic. Probably because it reminds of the eugenic programs conducted by the Nazi. And, I'm probably going to get a lot of flack for saying this but I believe in eugenics.

I think humans are still one step away from animals. We are overcome with road rage. We admire conquerers like Achilles, Alexander the Great, Napolean, and Genghis Khan who have killed 100s of millions of people. Genghis Khan killed so many that the entire world's population decreased by 11%! We love watching sports, without realizing we do so because we love violence and athletic achievement. We cut the line on a highway ramp when we can. I think this is a huge sin. ;)

Now, imagine if we were able to eliminate such violence and selfishness from our genes? Think about how fast our society would advance technologically wise if everyone had an IQ of 200. (I know 100 is the average iq. I mean if everyone in the future had an iq that is the equivalent of a 200 iq today.)

Here is my solution. Why not have people with desirable traits (creativity, high IQ, diligence, etc.) be given tax incentives to have 3+ children. And, people who don't are only allowed one child. (It's funny but I think right now the reverse is happening just like in the movie Idiocracy.)

I think we would have to disguise this program somehow so it won't engender bad feelings. Mask the tax incentive program. For example, tax incentives will be given to large families. But, to take advantage of this program, you need to become a Merit Scholar or Fullbright scholar or something of merit.

If we do it like this, it won't have the harshness of preventing everyone from having kids. Everyone can have kids but there will just be a gentle push towards desirable traits. And, after a few hundred years, we might even invent time travel!

Eugenics is best left alone.

It's funny but this topic hasn't gained much attention by posters. But, I think eugenics would literally be the biggest advance of mankind. It would eclipse the wheel, the discovery of fire, computers, or money. It would cure poverty, war, and misery on this planet.

It's unfortunate the Nazis put a black mark on the field. I hope one day, people would consider it.

I completely agree.

"In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."

Hopefully genetic engineering takes off. Because I really don't see a eugenics program being implemented anytime soon.

"In case anyone hasn't noticed it, the West is in extremis. The undertaker is checking his watch at the foot of its bed, and there's a sinister kettle of croaking, money-feathered vultures on the roof."

At 10/3/2014 10:48:41 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:Eugenics is a very sensitive topic. Probably because it reminds of the eugenic programs conducted by the Nazi. And, I'm probably going to get a lot of flack for saying this but I believe in eugenics.

The problem is that eugenics will inevitably lead to the kind of programs the Nazis implemented.

I think humans are still one step away from animals. We are overcome with road rage. We admire conquerers like Achilles, Alexander the Great, Napolean, and Genghis Khan who have killed 100s of millions of people. Genghis Khan killed so many that the entire world's population decreased by 11%! We love watching sports, without realizing we do so because we love violence and athletic achievement. We cut the line on a highway ramp when we can. I think this is a huge sin. ;)

Some of those conquerors weren't beasts, Alexander and Napoleon for example were trying to expand civilization and culture (Alexander's conquests enriched the Ancient World), and in the case of the latter human rights and other enlightenment values. The first was more successful than the latter.

I can refute the rest of your points by pointing out that aggression and competitiveness are natural traits which can be expressed in harmful ways that are not intended to be beneficial (Genghis Khan), harmful ways with the desire to do beneficial things later (Alexander and Napoleon), harmless manner but with no benefit (sports), and peaceful ways with benefit (Science).

It is naive to expect people to carry out scientific and scholarly research without any desire for competition. Scholars and scientists can be quite aggressive when defending their preferred hypothesis and refuting others. The truth is that we wouldn't have made any advances in technology or even in society without any of the traits that you wish to eliminate even if you have the intention of favoring more peaceful traits, many of which are not inheritable.

So I would have to say that I firmly oppose any form of eugenics.

"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.

At 10/10/2014 3:17:30 AM, charleslb wrote:Also, let's not be naive, in a capitalist society eugenics would be directed by, and directed toward the interests of, capitalist elites and corporations. In a capitalist society in which human beings are already commodified eugenics would be used to produce a human product more serviceable to the purposes of the rice & economically powerful; and more valuable from the crass point of view of big business which would always have its tentacles in, if not outright control any large-scale eugenics program. Yes, it would be quite simplistic and dangerously naive to think that eugenics would ever simply be practiced for the good of the species.

Do you see your bias? Your lack of objectivity?

Lol Jackass, it would profit you to focus less on my alleged bias and more on the beam in your own eye.

At 10/10/2014 3:54:38 PM, TryingToBeOpenMinded wrote:Think of history and see how beneficial unintended eugenics were.

Scientists theorize that Ashkenazi Jews have high IQ because successful men were encouraged to have huge families. Only the rich (proxy for IQ) were able to afford these huge families. As a result, over many generations, this group have higher than average brain size and reported iq.

The results? About 22% of Nobel prizes have been won by Jews even though they constitute less than .2% of the population. That's a lot of good.

Now, look at Asian countries strongly influenced by Confucianism. Under Confucianism, men who passed extremely difficult civil service exams were granted powerful and lucrative positions. And, they ended up having multiple wives with huge broods. Although communism derailed the economies of these countries for the past 100 years, these particular countries are coming back stronger than other asian countries. And, most likely will become the new "United States" in about 100 years.

Now, imagine if this sort of eugenics were applied to all of mankind. The good it would produce. The advances we would make....

Although *Maoism derailed... Let's not rewrite history here.

Out of interest, if you believe that Asians from China and Ashkenazi Jews are so intelligent, what's your theory to explain the political and scientific advances of white European society?

Capitalists aren't really interested in anything but the wholesale quashing of any talk of Eugenics.

A lower pool of handicapped people only hurts those in power (must have people to exploit).

Making intelligent people the norm is akin to disrobing the "emperor"

I would like to see how a communist society would implement eugenics though. That would seem the only way it could actually happen: under a purely communist society.

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.

Out of interest, if you believe that Asians from China and Ashkenazi Jews are so intelligent, what's your theory to explain the political and scientific advances of white European society?

Smart people don't need to waste time inventing things if they can just steal it. I mean, Steve Jobs was pretty smart...

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.